Blah blah blah, Amazon-Hachette.<\/p>\n
Amazon put out a new offer which was very kind to Hachette writers,\u00a0so\u00a0<\/em>kind, in fact, that it was untenable because it would hurt Hachette in the end: roughly the equivalent of saying, “We will give every author a pony and a jet-ski if all the executives at Hachette line up on television and punch themselves in the face.”<\/p>\n The offer may very well be an earnest one by a company that loves authors. The offer may be a plea to get the hearts of the authors without doing anything about it, because Hachette was always, always, always going to reject that deal. (If I know you’re going to reject a deal up front, I can offer you the world, appearing grandly magnanimous in what is predictably an empty gesture. I might suggest that Amazon’s kindest and most realistic move would simply be to return Hachette books to their original status — pre-orderable and shipping quickly. This wouldn’t merely be kind, but also help stanch the flow of buyers who are realizing they can buy books from, y’know,\u00a0other places<\/em>, thus altering their purchasing patterns and — oh, hell, this isn’t why I’m here.)<\/p>\n Point is: I do not know the hearts and minds of these corporations.<\/p>\n And if we’ve learned anything from Hobby Lobby and certain petitions:<\/p>\n Corporations are people and we’d hate to hurt their feelings<\/em>.<\/p>\n Ahem.<\/p>\n I’d offer, however, the notion that\u00a0authors<\/em> are actually the real people here that are worth caring about — and the rhetoric and framing of this\u00a0author-versus-author<\/em> is total uglypants. So, in this instance, when Amazon makes its deal and several Hachette authors come out and say, “That’s lovely, but actually, I quite like my publisher,” they are noted as suffering from ‘Stockholm Syndrome.’ Which is to say, they are being compared to actual\u00a0hostages<\/em> who have been made to\u00a0sympathize with their\u00a0captors<\/em>. It’s nasty language, suggesting that they are, in effect, abuse victims who have grown to like the licking they’re taking.<\/p>\n Please, understand:<\/p>\n Some writers like their publishers.<\/p>\n I know, that’s weird, particularly if you’ve taken the position that Self-Pub Is True And Mighty and Traditional Publishing Is Exploitative And Cruel. But, here’s a revolutionary idea: maybe traditional-publishing isn’t universally exploitative. (It can be!\u00a0Oh boy<\/em>, it can be.) Maybe, just maybe, people have agents who have negotiated for them strong contracts that don’t fall prey to a lot of the perils we hear: they keep copyright, they get good advances, they negotiate stronger percentages and escalators, they are free of various harmful non-compete clauses. Maybe every publishing deal isn’t a whip-crack against one’s bare ass.<\/p>\n Not every publishing deal is the Prom at the end of\u00a0Carrie<\/strong>.<\/p>\n Some authors feel they are getting value from their publishers.<\/p>\n Editorial. Marketing. Distribution.<\/p>\n Some authors feel that they cannot do these things on their own, or simply don’t want to.<\/p>\n That’s not Stockholm Syndrome. (A term that proves itself false the moment you take a long look at it — a\u00a0captor<\/em> is one who has forcibly detained you. Authors willingly sign contracts. They are complicit from the get-go. If you’re another writer using this term: you should be a better writer and cleave to more precise — and less inflammatory — language.)<\/p>\n Some authors really\u00a0are\u00a0<\/em>in uneven — even exploitative — relationships with their publishers. It’s true. And if you’re earnest hope is to help show them the light, you don’t do that by calling them names like a schoolyard bully, or worse, suggesting that they are in some way mentally ill<\/em>. You do it by consistently showing them the freedom you possess that they don’t. (Not money. Going on about how much money you’re making, while honest, has the look of a rich kid crumpling up dollar bills and pitching them at your head.) Just open the door and let them see the Glittery Unicorn Wonderland in which you frolic — you don’t then also have to go up to them and punch them in the face because they’re not dancing around the same candy cane maypole.<\/p>\n And, just the same, when an author with a publisher says they’re happy?<\/p>\n Leave it alone.<\/p>\n Wish them well!<\/p>\n Consider that they might be:<\/p>\n a) earnest<\/p>\n and<\/p>\n b) not actually held hostage.<\/p>\n They are not sycophants for liking their publisher. Just as you’re not a sycophant for thinking Amazon is pretty whoa-dang cool for doing what it’s done. (Curiously, Amazon, when acting as a publisher, offers deals comparable to those on the traditional side of things.)<\/p>\n So, y’know — maybe tone it down a little.<\/p>\n Maybe accept that people have different experiences.<\/p>\n Maybe they’re not bound to their captors because they… aren’t held captive.<\/p>\n